Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28812154›Full record

ReviewSurgical endoscopy2018

Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: towards defining criteria to the right choice.

Matthew Zelhart, Andreas M Kaiser

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07138859 (Prospective, Multiceter, Randomized, Controlled Study on the Intraoperative Technical Errors of Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Radical Right Hemiclectomy), which is not on this map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT07138859 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Prospective, Multiceter, Randomized, Controlled Study on the Intraoperative Technical Errors of Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Radical Right Hemiclectomy (Superiority Design,ROBOGEON® 2501study)

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao UniversityRan2025 to 2030Enrolled368ConditionsColorectal Carcinoma (CRC), Right HemicolectomyArmsRobot assisted radical right hemicolectomy (D3 lymph node dissection), Laparoscopic assisted radical right hemicolectomy (D3 lymph node dissection)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. A feasibility cadaver study for placing screws in various pelvic osseous fracture pathways using a robotic arm.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Minimally invasive colorectal surgery learning curve.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Matthew ZelhartDepartment of Surgery, Division of Colorectal Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 1441 Eastlake Avenue, Suite 7418, Los Angeles, 90033, CA, USA.
Andreas M KaiserDepartment of Surgery, Division of Colorectal Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 1441 Eastlake Avenue, Suite 7418, Los Angeles, 90033, CA, USA. akaiser@usc.edu.
University of Southern California · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAnalysis of various parameters related to the patient, the disease, and the needed surgical maneuvers to develop guidance for preoperative selection of the appropriate and the best approach for a given patient. Rapid advances in minimally invasive surgical technology are fascinating and challenging alike. It can be difficult for surgeons to keep up with new modalities that come on to the market place and to assess their true value, i.e., distinguish between fashionable trends versus scientific evidence. Laparoscopy established minimally invasive surgery and has revolutionized surgical concepts and approaches to diseases since its advent in the early 1990s. Now, with robotic surgery rapidly gaining traction in this high-tech surgical landscape, it remains to be seen how the long-term surgical landscape will be affected.

methodsReview of the surgical evolution, published data and cost factors to reflect on advantages and disadvantages in order to develop a broader perspective on the role of various technology platforms.

resultsAdvocates for robotic technology tout its advantages of 3D views, articulating wrists, lack of hand tremor, and surgeon comfort, which may extend the scope of minimally invasive surgery by allowing for operations in places that are more difficult to access for laparoscopic surgery (e.g., the deep pelvis), for complex tasks (e.g., intracorporeal suturing), and by decreasing the learning curve. But conventional laparoscopy has also evolved and offers high-definition 3D vision to all team members. It remains to be seen whether all together the robot features outweigh the downsides of higher cost, operative times, lack of tactile feedback, possibly unusual complications, inability to move the operative table with ease, and the difficulty to work in different quadrants.

conclusionsWhile technical and design developments will likely address some shortcomings, the value-based impact of the various approaches will have to be examined in general and on a case-by-case basis. Value as the ratio of quality over cost depends on numerous parameters (disease, complications, patient, efficiency, finances).

Indexed as

ColectomyColorectal NeoplasmsCosts and Cost AnalysisHumansLaparoscopyProctectomyRobotic Surgical ProceduresColorectal resectionLaparoscopic surgeryLow anterior resectionOpen surgeryPatient selectionRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID28812154
OpenAlexW2746199543

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.